Partly allowed

Tata Projects Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2017WP/2051/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delayed income-tax return processing and refunds prompted directions permitting manual processing where software fails, clarifying Assessing Officers' discretion after scrutiny notices, and requiring rational processing priorities. The court ordered time-bound processing and any consequential refund in one petition and accepted assessment and refund undertakings in another.

What did the court decide?

Time-bound return processing and consequential refund directed; assessment/refund undertakings accepted; clarification, manual-processing instructions and a rational priority policy ordered.

Tata Projects Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶2

¶3

ssp

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2051 OF 2017

¶6

Tata Projects Limited ...Petitioner
vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Range 2(3)(2) & Ors....Respondents

¶7

ALONG WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION (L)NO.2498 OF 2017

¶9

Tata Projects Limited ...Petitioner
vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Range 2(3)(1) & Ors....Respondents

¶10

ALONG WITH

¶11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.782 OF 2017

¶12

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)
Limited ...Petitioner
vs.
The Central Board of Directions
Taxes and Others...Respondents

¶13

Mr.J.D.Mistry, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Nishant Thakkar
and Ms Jasmin Amalsadwala i/b PDS Legal for the
Petitioners in W.P.Nos.2051/2017 and W.P.(L)
No.2498/2017
Mr.Anil Singh, ASG a/w Mr.A.R.Malhotra and Ms
Geetika Gandhi for the respondents
Mr.Prakash Shah, Mr.Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for
the petitioner in W.P.No.782 of 2017
Mr.Anil C.Singh, ASG a/w Mr.Suresh Kumar for
respondents in W.P.No.782 of 2017

¶14

 CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A.K.MENON,JJ.
 DATE : 21st,22nd and 23rd NOVEMBER, 2017

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶16

1We have heard these petitions at some length as
certain important procedural and legal issues are

¶17

¶18

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶19

involved in these petitions which arise out of the
provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short
`the said Act'). The issues relate to implementation
of the Centralised Processing of Return Scheme, 2011
published under the notification SO-16E dated 4th
January 2012 and especially the processing of the
returns which are transmitted by the Centralised
Processing Centre (for short “the Centre”) to
Assessing Officers having jurisdiction in accordance
with sub clause (iii) of clause (8) of the
Centralised Processing of Return Scheme,2011 (for
short “the said Scheme of 2011”). The petitions
also concern issue of interpretation of sub-section
1(D) of section 143 of the said Act as existing on
the relevant date.

¶20

2Writ Petition No.2051 of 2017 and WP(L) 2498 of
2017 have been filed by the same Company. Writ
Petition No.2051 of 2017 concerns the assessment
year 2015-16 and Writ Petition (L) No.2498 of 2017
concerns the assessment year 2016-17. In the case
of assessment year 2015-16, return was filed by the
petitioner-company on 30th November 2015 claiming
refund. A revised return was filed on 9th January
2016 claiming higher refund. Both the returns were
filed electronically. In relation to the said
returns filed for the assessment year 2015-16, a
notice under sub-section 2 of section 143 of the
said Act was issued by the respondents on 19th
September 2016. It is stated in the petition that
as scrutiny proceedings of the cases of the
assessment year 2014-15 are not yet concluded, the

¶21

¶22

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶23

scrutiny proceedings of the returns of the
assessment year 2015-16 have been kept pending.
According to the case of the petitioner, on 6th June
2016, Income Tax e-filing website showed that the
returns were transferred by the Centre to the
jurisdictional Assessing Officer for processing.
Reliance is placed on screen shot of the concerned
page of the website. The petition refers to
communications of the Officer of the petitioner to
the offices of the first and second respondents for
the purposes of pursuing return and the claim for
refund. Reliance is placed on several letters
addressed by the petitioner from time to time.
According to the case of the petitioner, on 19th May
2017, the first respondent (Assessing Officer)
signed intimation under clause (a) of sub-section 1
of section 143 of processing the refund of
Rs.28,75,27,080/- along with interest payable under
section 244A of the said Act. The case made out by
the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the
refund was not issued by the first respondent but it
was orally informed that the refund will not be
issued due to expiry of limitation contained in the
second proviso to clause (a) of sub-section 1 of
section 143 of the said Act. Writ Petition No.2051
of 2017 is filed seeking a writ of mandamus
directing respondents to process of return for the
assessment year 2015-16 and to issue the refund.

¶24

3As stated earlier, Writ Petition (L) No.2498 of
2017 relates to the returns filed for the
assessment year 2016-17. In this case, a return

¶25

¶26

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶27

claiming refund was filed on 30th November 2016 and
the return was subsequently revised on 20th December
2016. According to the case of the petitioner, on
23rd December 2016, the Centre transferred the
returns filed by the petitioner to jurisdictional
Assessing Officer for its processing. Even in this
petition, reliance is placed on the visits made by
the Officers of the Petitioner to the Office of the
Assessing Officer and the letters addressed by the
petitioner to the Assessing Officer. According to
the case of the petitioner, on 12th July 2017, after
manually processing the return, the first respondent
came to the conclusion that the petitioner is
entitledtorefundofRs.10,88,85,962/-.
Thereafter, a representation was made requesting the
second respondent to issue the refund. As no action
was taken by the respondents, this petition was
filed seeking a writ of mandamus enjoining the
respondents to issue the refund of the amount
already determined by the Assessing Officer after
manually processing the return.

¶28

4As far as Writ Petition No.782 of 2017 is
concerned, the relief sought in this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in
relation to the returns filed by the petitioner
company for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17.
An order was passed on 25th October 2016 (Exhibit-A
to the petition). The said order is under section
119 of the said Act which notes that the returns
containing claims for refund for the assessment
years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 were not processed

¶29

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶30

¶31

within the time frame prescribed under sub-section 1
of section 143 of the said Act. It was pointed out
that as a result of this delay the Tax Payers were
deprived of legitimate refund. By the said order,
the power under section 119 was exercised by the
Central Board of Direct Taxes by which the time
frame prescribed in second proviso to sub 1 of
section 143 was relaxed and returns were permitted
to be processed by 31st March 2017. In paragraph 3
of the said order, it is stated thus:

¶32

“3However, the above relaxation shall not
be applicable to those cases where the said
return-of-income was not processed in view of
provisions of sub-section (1D) of section 143
of the Act. Further, this relaxation shall
not be applicable to those cases where either
demand is shown as payable in the return-of-
income or is likely to so arise after
processing the return-of-income.”

¶33

5The grievance made in this petition is about
the failure of the respondents to process the
returns for the refund. A prayer is made firstly
for setting aside the impugned order dated 25th
October 2016 to the extent to which it restricts
relaxation for processing of returns by 31st March
2017 where returns could not be processed in view of
Section 143 (1D) as notices were issued under sub-
section (2) of section 143. The second prayer is
for a writ of mandamus enjoining the respondents to
process the returns and sanction the refund for the

¶34

¶35

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶36

assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. It
is not in dispute that with the passage of time,
this petition survives only as regards the
assessment year 2016-17.

¶37

6Coming back to the first two petitions, at two
stages, affidavits in reply have been filed. The
first affidavit is dated 27th October 2017 in
implementation of the order dated 11th October 2017.
Paragraph 1 of the said order reads thus:

¶38

“1Heard the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for the
respondents. We have perused the letter
dated 29th September 2016 addressed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1),
Mumbai to the learned senior standing counsel
of the Income Tax Department. The said letter
discloses shocking state of affairs. It
records that as far as return filed by the
petitioner for the assessment year 2016-2017
is concerned, an attempt was made on 12th June
2016 to process the return through ITD
systems. The system denied processing of the
return on the ground that ITD software is
under construction. Another attempt was made
on 27th September 2016 to process the return
electronically which could not be successful
on the same ground. The letter records that
the ITD software for the year 2016-2017 is
likely to be released by the end of October
2017. Thus, all concerned departments were

¶39

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶40

¶41

aware at least on 27th September 2016 that the
said software was not available for the year
2016-2017. That is the status which continues
till today.”

¶42

7A direction was issued in paragraph 3 of the
said order which reads thus:

¶43

“3We direct the appropriate Officer of the
Income Tax Department to file an affidavit
setting out as to why there is a gross delay
in providing ITR software for the year 2016-
2017. The affidavit will also state what
action the Government of India proposes to
take against those who are guilty of
dereliction of duty. Today, we are not
passing any order directing that the manual
process be adopted as the learned ASG stated
that the software will be released by the end
of this order and the processing of return of
2016-2017 will be completed by end of
November 2017. The affidavit shall be filed
by 30th October 2017.”

¶44

8An Affidavit in response to the said direction
is filed by K. Ravi Ramachandran, Additional
Commissioner of Income-tax - 2(3), Mumbai. On the
basis of the said order, clarifications were sought
by him which have been reproduced in paragraph 6 of
the said affidavit. It is contended that out of 4.35
crore e-filed Returns for the assessment year 2016-
17, 1% income tax returns were transferred to the

¶45

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶46

¶47

Assessing Officer (AO) as the same were selected for
Scrutiny and therefore, assessment was required to
be done by the AOs. It is stated that only a small
percentage of the returns was pushed to AO and it
is stated that 79,936/- returns were transferred by
the Centre to the AOs for processing. It is stated
that certain category of returns which were
transferred to AOs by the Centre are not processed
normally. It is stated that a category of cases was
transferred to AOs was of cases where a claim
under sections 90 and 91 of the said Act was made by
the taxpayer. It is stated that from the assessment
year 2015-16, ambitious project was undertaken by
the Income Tax Department called as Income Tax
Business Application (ITBA). It is stated that in
ITBA, many modules of software were launched.
Various details of the softwares have been
mentioned. Ultimately, it is stated in the affidavit
that a software to process the returns of the
assessment year 2016-17 will be available by 31st
October 2017 and that if any subsequent technical
issue arises, that will be expeditiously addressed.
An assurance was given that returns for the year
2016-17 will be processed by not later than 30th
November 2017.

¶48

9There is a separate affidavit filed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Writ
Petition No. 2051 of 2017 concerning assessment year
2015-16. It is contended therein that the case of
the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under CASS
cycle, and thereafter, the return was pushed to AO

¶49

¶50

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶51

by the Centre at Bangalore. Subsequently, a notice
under sub-section 1 of section 143 was issued to the
petitioner-assessee. It is specifically contended
in paragraph 6 that as a notice under sub-section 2
of section 143 was issued on 19th September 2016, in
view of sub-section 1 (D) of section 143, the
assessment under sub-section 1 of section 143 was
not done and the time provided in the second proviso
of sub-section 1 of section 143 expired on 31st March
2017. It is further stated that the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai declined to grant
permission for manual processing of the return of
the said year. Further, it is stated that the time
is available to complete assessment till 31st
December 2017 and therefore, if refund is due, the
same will be granted latest by 31st December 2017.

¶52

10As far as Writ Petition no.782 of 2017 is
concerned, there is no affidavit in reply filed by
the respondents.

¶53

11Before we advert to the submissions made across
the bar, certain more factual aspects which are
relevant will have to have noted. As far as Writ
Petition No.2051 of 2017 is concerned which deals
with the Assessment Year 2015-16, a notice under
sub-section (2) of Section 143 was served only on
19th September, 2016. As regards Writ Petition (st)
no.2498 of 2017, a notice under sub-section (2) of
Section 143 of the said Act was issued for the
Assessment Year 2016-17 on 16th August, 2017.

¶54

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶55

¶56

12In all the three petitions, various issues are
canvassed. The first issue canvassed especially in
the Writ Petition relating to the Assessment Year
2016-17 is regarding the failure of the department
to provide proper software under ITBA for processing
the returns which were forwarded by the Centre to AO
for processing. Reliance is placed on various
orders passed by this Court from time to time. The
crux of the submission is that there is no law which
prevents AO from processing the returns manually
when requisite software is not available. Another
issue canvassed is on the interpretation of sub-
section (1D) of Section 143 of the said Act and
especially with reference to the stand taken in both
the affidavits that in every case where a notice
under sub-section (2) of Section 143 is issued, the
return cannot be processed. Another issue canvassed
is about the delay in processing the returns as a
result of which the petitioners have been denied
legitimate refund. There are submissions canvassed
on the interpretation of various sub-sections of
Section 143. There are also submissions canvassed
on the said scheme of 2011. We must also note here
that as far as Writ Petition (L)no.2498 of 2017 is
concerned, after commencement of hearing of the
petition, the returns for the Assessment Year 2016-
17 have been processed and refund has been issued.
We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Writ Petition (L)No.2498 of
2017 and Writ Petition No.2051 of 2017. We have
heard the learned counsel representing the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.782 of 2017. We

¶57

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶58

¶59

have also heard the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India on the provisions of the said
Scheme and in general on the submissions canvassed
across the bar.

¶60

13One of the main reasons for giving detailed
hearing to the parties is the admitted failure of
the department to provide proper software for
processing of returns of the Assessment Year 2016-17
which were sent by the Centre to AOs for assessment.

¶61

14To the affidavit of Shri K. Ravi Ramachandran,
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3), Mumbai,
there are various annexures which include a letter
dated 26th October, 2017 issued by the Directorate of
Income Tax (Systems) which accepts the fact that out
of the returns filed for the Assessment Year 2016-
17, the Centre at Bangalore forwarded 79,936 returns
to the AOs for processing. A stand has been
specifically taken that in view of the provisions of
sub-section(1D) of Section 143, the processing of
the returns selected under scrutiny shall not be
necessary. The stand taken in the said letter issued
by the Directorate is that the returns submitted for
the Assessment Year 2016-17 will have to be
processed in ITBA. It is stated that the module for
processing of the returns was launched on 3rd
October, 2017 and it is stated that the module will
be ready for implementation by 31st October, 2017.
Thus, the returns filed for the Assessment Year
2016-17 which were forwarded to the AOs for
processing were not processed at least till 31st

¶62

¶63

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶64

October, 2017 only on the ground that the module in
ITBA was not ready. The consequence of this delay
is that the returns which were pushed to AOs
remained pending and could not be processed. It is
in this context that the issue of non-availability
of proper software assumes importance.

¶65

15Section 143 of the said Act as it exists today,
reads thus:-

¶66

[(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner,

¶67

namely: —

¶68

(a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:—

¶69

(i) any arithmetical error in the return; or

¶70

(ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return;

¶71

(b) the tax and interest, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the total income computed under clause (a);

¶72

(c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee shall be determined after adjustment of the tax and interest, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section 91, any rebate allowable under Part A of Chapter VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest;

¶73

(d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and

¶74

(e) the amount of refund due to the assessee in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the assessee:

¶75

Provided that an intimation shall also be sent to the assessee in a case where the loss declared in the return by the assessee is adjusted but no tax or interest is payable by, or no refund is due to, him:

¶76

Provided further that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the return is made.

¶77

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

¶78

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶79

¶80

(a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,—

¶81

(i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return;

¶82

(ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or

¶83

(iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction; (b) the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c), and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a).

¶84

(1A) For the purposes of processing of returns under subsection (1), the Board may make a scheme16 for centralised processing of returns with a view to expeditiously determining the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the assessee as required under the said sub-section. (1B) Save as otherwise expressly provided, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme16 made under sub-section (1A), the Central Government may, by notification16 in the Official Gazette, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to processing of returns shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in that notification; so, however, that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, [2012].

¶85

(1C) Every notification issued under sub-section (1B), along with the scheme made under sub-section (1A), shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament.] [(1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2).] [(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,— (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve 20 on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim:

¶86

[Provided that no notice under this clause shall be served on the assessee on or after the 1st day of June, 2003;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in

¶87

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶88

¶89

support of the return:

¶90

[Provided that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]]

¶91

[(3) On the day specified in the notice,—

¶92

(i) issued under clause (i) of sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence and after taking into account such particulars as the assessee may produce, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, allow or reject the claim or claims specified in such notice and make an assessment determining the total income or loss accordingly, and 24adetermine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment;

¶93

(ii) issued under clause (ii) of sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment:]

¶94

[Provided that in the case of a—

¶95

(a) [research association] referred to in clause (21) of section 10;

¶96

(b) news agency referred to in clause (22B) of section 10;

¶97

¶98

(d) institution referred to in clause (23B) of section 10;

¶99

(e) fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, which is required to furnish the return of income under sub-section (4C) of section 139, no order making an assessment of the total income or loss of such 26[research association], news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, shall be made by the Assessing Officer, without giving effect to the provisions of section 10, unless—

¶100

(i) the Assessing Officer has intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority the contravention of the provisions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, as the case may be, by such [research association], news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, where in his view such contravention has taken place; and

¶101

(ii) the approval granted to such [research association] or other association [or fund or trust] or institution or university or other educational institution or hospital or other medical institution has been withdrawn or notification issued in respect of such news agency or fund or trust or institution has been rescinded :]

¶102

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶103

¶104

[Provided further that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the activities of the university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) and clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which such university, college or other institution was approved, he may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed withdrawal to the concerned university, college or other institution, recommend to the Central Government to withdraw the approval and that Government may by order, withdraw the approval and forward a copy of the order to the concerned university, college or other institution and the Assessing Officer:]

¶105

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contained in the first and the second provisos, no effect shall be given by the Assessing Officer to the provisions of clause (23C) of section 10 in the case of a trust or institution for a previous year, if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2 become applicable in the case of such person in such previous year, whether or not the approval granted to such trust or institution or notification issued in respect of such trust or institution has been withdrawn or rescinded.]

¶106

[(4) Where a regular assessment under sub-section (3) of this section or section 144 is made,—

¶107

(a) any tax or interest paid by the assessee under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment ;

¶108

(b) if no refund is due on regular assessment or the amount refunded under sub-section (1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment, the whole or the excess amount so refunded shall be deemed to be tax payable by the assessee and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.”

¶109

Sub-section (1D) which was on the statute book on
the relevant date reads thus:-

¶110

“[(1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), the processing of a return
shall not be necessary, where a notice has
been issued to the assessee under sub-section
(2).]”

¶111

16When returns are filed either under Section 139
or pursuant to a notice under sub-section (1) of
Section 142, sub-section (1) of Section 143
mandates that the returns shall be processed in the
manner laid down in clauses (a) to (e) thereof.

¶112

¶113

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶114

Thus, the processing of a return involves
determination of total income or loss, tax and
interest, if any, payable and sum payable by, or the
amount of refund due to the assessee. Clause (d) of
sub-section (1) lays down that an intimation shall
be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee
specifying the sum determined payable by, or the
amount of refund due to the assessee under
clause(c). Clause (e) of sub-section (1) further
provides that the amount of refund due in pursuance
of the determination under clause (c) shall be
granted to the assessee. If the proviso to sub-
section(1) of section 143 is read, it mandates that
the intimation as provided in clause (d) has to be
issued before the expiry of one year from the end of
the financial year in which the return is made.
Before we go to sub-section (1D) as it stood at the
relevant time, we must make a reference to sub-
sections (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) contemplates
issuance of a notice in the contingency covered by
the said provision. Sub-section (3) provides that
once such a notice is served, after following the
procedure laid down therein, the Assessing Officer
is required to pass an order in writing making an
assessment of the total income or loss and determine
the sum payable by the assessee or refund of any
amount due to him on the basis of the assessment.
Thus, the net result of the processing done under
sub-section (1) of Section 143 and the order passed
under sub-section (3) of Section 143 is the same.
The time within which the exercise of passing an
order under sub-section(3) of Section 143 should be

¶115

¶116

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶117

done is provided in sub-section(1) of Section 153
of the said Act.

¶118

17Now we come to the interpretation of sub-
section(1D) which was on the statute book with
effect from 1st July, 2012. It provided that
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), the processing of return shall not be
necessary where a notice has been issued to the
assessee under sub-section(2) of section 143. The
Central Board of Direct Taxes issued instructions
dated 13th January, 2015 which state that the
provision of sub-section (1D) was enacted to prevent
the grant of refund after processing as the scrutiny
proceedings may result in demand for taxes on
finalization of the assessment subsequently. Thus,
in short, the instructions provided that in no case,
the return can be processed where a notice under
sub-section (2) of Section 143 was issued. This
instruction was a subject matter of challenge
before the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of
Delhi High Court in the case of Tata Teleservices
v/s. Union of India1 decided the issue. Paragraphs
23 and 24 of the said decision are relevant which
read thus:-

¶119

“23. The real effect of the instruction is to curtail the discretion of the AO by 'preventing' him from processing the return, where notice has been issued to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act. If it the legislative intent was that the return would not be processed at all once a

¶120

1 Writ Petition-Civil No.12304 of 2015 decided on 11^th May, 2016

¶121

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶122

¶123

notice is issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, then the legislature ought to have used express language and not the expression “shall not be necessary”. By the device of issuing an instruction in purported exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Act, the CBDT cannot proceed to interpret or instruct the income tax department to 'prevent' the issue of refund. In the event that a notice is issued to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act, it will be a matter the discretion of the concerned AO whether he should process the return.

¶124

Consequently, the Court is of the view that the impugned Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13^th January, 2015 issued by the CBDT is unsustainable in law and it is hereby quashed. It is directed that the said instruction shall not hereafter be relied upon to deny refunds to the Assessees in whose cases notices might have been issued under Section 143(2)of the Act. The question whether such return should be processed will have to be decided by the AO concerned exercising his discretion in terms of Section 143(1D) of the Act .”

¶125

(emphasis added)

¶126

18Thus, the legal position which emerges from the
decision of the Delhi High Court is that, it is the
discretion of the AO whether to process the return
or not, after a notice under sub-section(2) of
Section 143 of the said Act is issued and it cannot
be said that in every case in which a notice under
sub-section (2) of Section 143 has been issued, the
AO has no power to process the return. This view of

¶127

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶128

¶129

the Delhi High Court has been quoted with approval
by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India
and Others2. The Division Bench in paragraph 8 held
that AO would independently apply his mind and take
a decision in terms of Section 143 of sub-section
(1D) of the Act whether or not to grant a refund in
the facts and circumstances of each case. As noted
earlier, the stand of the department as is reflected
from the affidavits on record and the communication
dated 26th October, 2017 issued by the Directorate of
Income Tax (Systems) is that once a notice under
sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the said Act is
issued, there is no discretion left with the AO
whether to process the return or not. Thus, the said
stand taken by the department is completely contrary
to sub-section (1D) and the interpretation put to
the said Section by the Delhi High Court as well as
this Court, and therefore, the said stand deserves
to be rejected.

¶130

19While we are on the decision in the case of
M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we
must also refer to the other aspects dealt with and
decided by the Division Bench. Paragraphs 9 and 10
of the said decision are relevant for our
consideration which reads thus:-

¶131

“9. The only contention on behalf of the Revenue to oppose the petition is that as the Assessing Officer has time available to process the refund till 31st March, 2017, no mandamus

¶132

2 Writ Petition No.2067 of 2016 decided on 15^th October, 2016

¶133

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶134

¶135

can be issued till 31^st March, 2015. We repeatedly asked of Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, if there was any reason why the return could not be processed before 31st March, 2017. No reasons are forthcoming from the Revenue as to why the Assessing Officer will not able to dispose of the application for refund or process the return under Section 143(1) of the Act before 31st March, 2017. This conduct/stand of the Assessing Officer, to say the least, is most disturbing in the context of the fact that the petitioners have been seeking refund since April, 2016. First, he does not deem it proper to inform the petitioner in writing why he cannot deal with the application and after the petitioner moves the Court, the stand taken is that no direction can be given to him till 31st March, 2017 which is the last date to process the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. This attitude on the part of the Assessing Officer is preposterous.

¶136

10. The action of the officer on the ground urged seems to be in complete variance with the higher echelons of administration of the tax administration being an assessee friendly regime. In fact, the CBDT has itself issued Instruction No.7/2012, dated 1st August, 2002 wherein they have specifically directed the officers of the Revenue to process all returns in which refunds are payable expeditiously. Similarly, as late as in 2014 in the Citizen's Charter issued by the Income Tax Department in its vision statement states that the Department aspires to issue refunds along with interest under Section 143(1) of the Act within 6 months from date of electronically filing the returns. In this case, the return was filed on 29th November, 2015, yet

¶137

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶138

¶139

there is no reason why the Assessing Officer has not processed the refund and taken a decision to grant or not grant a refund under Section 143(1D) of the Act. This attitude on the part of the Assessing Officer leaves us with a feeling (not based on any evidence) that the Officers of the Revenue seem to believe that it is not enough for the assessee to please the deity (Income Tax Act) but the assessee must also please the priest (Income Tax Officer) before getting what is due to him under the Act. The officers of the State must ensure that their conduct does not give rise to the above feeling even remotely.”

¶140

(emphasis added)

¶141

20 In the facts of the case, the averments made in the first two petitions (of Tata Projects Ltd) and annexures to the petitions show that after the returns were transferred to the AO much before notices were issued under sub-section (2) of Section 143, the petitioner made repeated representations to the AO to process the returns and number of visits were made by the officers of the petitioners. Perhaps, the AO was under an impression that he can wait till the last date provided for processing of the returns. If we peruse the affidavit of Mr. Madhukar AVES, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax2(3)(1), Mumbai, filed in Writ Petition No.2051 of 2017 and in particular paragraph 9, it is very clear that he is under an impression that as the last date for completing scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is 31^st December, 2017, he

¶142

22 oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶143

can wait till 31st December, 2017 for completing the
scrutiny assessment. This approach which is
reflected from the said affidavit, has to be
deprecated. Secondly, he has completely ignored that
the return has to be processed as there was no
discretion exercised after service of notice under
sub-section (2) of section 143.

¶144

21In Writ Petition (L)No.2498 of 2017, the
assurance given in the affidavit is that the return
would be processed and refund will be released by
the end of November 2017. Accordingly, refund has
also been issued. In writ petition no.782 of 2017,
when the petition was argued day before yesterday,
the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for
the Income Tax Department, on the basis of written
instructions was that due to technical difficulties
in ITBA system, processing cannot be done. It is
stated that in the written note of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai, that
numerous complaints have been lodged with the ITBA
help desk highlighting the issue so as to enable the
said office to process the returns of income for the
Assessment Year 2016-17. There are specific
statements made that due to the technical errors,
the return of Assessment Year 2016-17 of the
petitioner cannot be processed. It appears that on
the same day in the evening, after the submissions
were heard, an attempt was made to process the
return of the petitioner. From the snapshot of the
relevant page of ITBA which is tendered across the
bar by the income tax department, it is clear that

¶145

¶146

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶147

this exercise was done on 20th November, 2017 at 6.25
p.m. which records that the return is submitted
successfully. Perhaps, only after the submissions
were heard that some efforts was made to process the
return.

¶148

22We made a query to the learned ASG whether
there is any policy of the department as regards
priority to be given to the returns which are to be
processed AOs. The returns are required to be
processed by AO under the said scheme of 2011
either by reason of a notice having been issued
under sub-section (2) of Section 143 or because the
returns are pushed to AOs for processing for other
reasons. It cannot be that the Assessing Officer
gives priority for processing of the returns of
those assessees who file petitions in this Court and
make a grievance. There has to be a rational policy
for processing the returns which are sent to the AO
and which are required to be dealt with either under
sub-section(1) or sub-section(3) of Section 143.
There cannot be a pick and choose policy and the AOs
will have to be guided by a rational policy which
will stand the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. As a Writ Court, we cannot
appreciate the practice of giving priority to the
processing of the returns of those assessees who
approach to this Court with a grievance. We have
already quoted paragraph 10 of judgment of this
Court in the case of M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) and very pertinent observations made by
the Division Bench in the last part of paragraph 10.

¶149

¶150

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶151

As indicated by the said observations, the AOs
cannot give priority to the processing of the
returns to those assessees who approach them. We
are surprised to note that there is no order of
priority laid down by any authority which will bind
the AOs when it comes to processing of the returns.
For example, the returns of Assessment Year 2016-17
which were transferred to AO were not processed till
31st October, 2017 as proper ITBA software was not
available. Now the income tax department must
ensure that the returns which are kept pending due
to its own default, are processed as per a rational
policy which determines the order of priority. We
are on this aspect, it will be necessary to advert
to the notification No.S.O.17(E) dated 4th January,
2012, sub-clause (iib) of clause 8 is relevant which
confers power on the Commissioner to decide the
order of priority for processing of returns of
income based on administrative requirements. The
phrase “administrative requirements” is very vague.
In fact this clause indicates that there can be
arbitrariness while deciding which returns should be
given priority for the processing. Therefore, we
propose to issue a direction to the respondents to
formulate a rational policy on this aspect and place
it before the Court within the time specified by
this Court.

¶152

23Now we come to the issue whether AOs can
manually process the returns which have been
transferred by the Centre at Bangalore to them for
various reasons.

¶153

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶154

¶155

24Sub-section (1A) of Section 143 lays down that
for the purpose of processing returns under sub-
section (1), the Board may make a scheme for
centralized processing of returns with a view to
expeditiously determining the tax payable by, or the
refund due to, the assessee as required sub-section
(1) of Section 143. Thus, the object of providing
for centralized process of returns is to avoid delay
in the processing of the returns.

¶156

25The said Scheme of 2011 and in particular
clause 7 provides for setting up as many centralized
processing Centres as it may deem necessary.
Accordingly, the Centre has been established at
Bangalore. Clause 8 of the said Scheme 2011 is
relevant which reads thus:-

¶157

“8. Processing of Returns.

¶158

(i) The Centre shall process a valid return of income in the following manner, namely: –

¶159

(a) the sum payable to, or the amount of refund due to, the person shall be determined after credit of such Tax Collected at Source (TCS), Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and tax payment claims which can be automatically validated with reference to data uploaded through TDS and TCS statements by the deductors or the collectors, as the case may be, and tax payment challans reported through authorised banks in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Centre in this regard;

¶160

¶161

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶162

(b) an intimation shall be generated electronically and sent to the person by e-mail specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of the refund due to, the person; and

¶163

(c) any intimation to the person to pay any sum determined to be payable shall be deemed to be a notice of demand as per the provisions of section 156 of the Act and all other provisions of the Act shall be applicable accordingly.

¶164

(ii) The Commissioner may, –

¶165

(a) adopt appropriate procedure for processing of returns; or

¶166

(b) decide the order of priority for processing of returns of income based on administrative requirements.

¶167

(iii) Wherever a return cannot be processed in the Centre for any reasons, the Commissioner shall arrange to transmit such return to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to processing.”

¶168

26Sub-clause(i) of clause 8 lays down the manner
in which the centre shall process a valid return of
income. Clause 8 is consistent with sub-section
(1A) of Section 143. Sub-clause (ii) is very vague.
It provides that the Commissioner may adopt
appropriate procedure for processing of returns or
decide the order of priority for processing of
returns of income based on administrative
requirements. It is obvious that the said discretion
conferred on the Commissioner has to be exercised,
consistent with the object of sub-section (1A) of
Section 143 of ensuring speedy processing of returns

¶169

¶170

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶171

which are filed at the Centre. The said power
cannot be exercised to delay the processing of
returns or to create a situation where without
following any order of priority AOs, pick and choose
the returns and process the same out of turn. The
only provision under the said Scheme of 2011 which
enables the Centre to transmit the returns to AOs is
in sub-clause(iii) of clause 8 which provides that
wherever the return cannot be processed in the
Centre for any reason, the Commissioner shall
arrange to transmit such return to the AO having
jurisdiction for processing. One such reason can be
issuance of a notice under sub-section (2) of
Section 143. Such a return may be covered by the
regime of sub-section (3) of Section 143, but AO has
a discretion to process the return in question after
service of notice under Section (2) of Section 143.

¶172

27Notification no.17E dated 4th January, 2012
(for short the “the second notification”) has been
issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-
section (1B) of Section 143 for giving effect to the
scheme framed under sub-section (1A) of Section 143.
Sub-section (1B) confers powers on the Central
Government to direct that any of the provisions of
the said Act relating to processing of returns,
shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions,
modifications and adaptations as may be specified in
the notification published in the Official Gazette.
A careful perusal of the second notification and in
particular clause 3 thereof will show that there is
no modification made to the provisions of Section

¶173

¶174

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶175

143. Sub-clause(v) of clause (3) contains a similar
provision that wherever a return cannot be processed
in the Centre for any reason, the Commissioner shall
arrange to transmit such return to the AO having
jurisdiction for processing. Neither in the said
Scheme of 2011 nor in the second notification, it is
provided that in certain cases, such return can be
re-transmitted by AO to the Centre. Both the
notifications clearly provide that whenever such
returns are transmitted by the Commissioner from the
Centre to AO, the same shall be processed by the
Assessing Officer in accordance with sub-section(1)
of Section 143.

¶176

28There is no provision in both the notifications
which lays down that after the returns are sent to
the Assessing Officer, if he finds that the returns
cannot be processed on ITBA or any other software,
the same cannot be processed manually. In the
context of the discretionary powers conferred on the
Commissioner of adopting the appropriate procedure
for processing of the returns, it will be necessary
to make a reference to the facts of the case in Writ
Petition (L)No.2498 of 2017 which is for Assessment
Year 2016-17. The AO had sought a permission from
the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, to
assess the return manually. The said permission was
denied though the Principal Commissioner was aware
that the module in ITBA will be ready for
implementation earliest by 31st October, 2017. We
presume that the Commissioner exercised his
discretion under sub-clause(ii) of clause 8 of the

¶177

¶178

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶179

said scheme of 2011 or sub-clause(iv) of clause (3)
of the second notification. The only object served
by the refusal of the Commissioner to grant
permission to process return manually was that the
processing of the return was unduly delayed. In
fact, the Principal Commissioner ought to have taken
steps to remedy the situation and with a view to
ensure that the returns transmitted to AO are not
kept pending, ought to have authorised manual
processing of returns. The said scheme of 2011 was
brought into force with the object of expediting
the processing of returns. Due to the approach
adopted by the Principal Commissioner, in fact
there was a delay caused in processing of the
returns.

¶180

29The situation arising due to non-availability
of software has been dealt with by this Court in the
past. In the case of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. v/s.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1) and another3,
this issue arose before a Division Bench of this
Court. The petitions were disposed of by order
dated 27th October, 2016. Paragraph 1 of the said
order notes that the Assessing Officer was rendered
helpless to process the returns for Assessment Year
2014-15 and 2015-16 due to technical difficulties in
running of the software. Only after the petition was
filed that a statement made by the learned ASG on
behalf of the respondent that the system was
functional. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order

¶181

3 Writ Petition Nos.2424 and 2425 of 2016 decided on 27^th October 2016

¶182

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶183

¶184

reads thus:-

¶185

“3. In terms of Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to process a return of income by making adjustment as specified thereunder and sending an intimation to the assessee. This intimation is required to be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the return of income is filed, if any demand is payable or an amount is refundable to an assessee. In terms of Section 143(1D) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has a discretion whether to process or not a return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act, where notices have already been issued under sub-section(2) to Section 143 of the Act. In the facts of this case, the Assessing Officer is unable to process the return of income not of his volition but because the technology employed by the Income Tax Department fails him and the Act. On being asked, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, states that the systems difficulty continues till date even though the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken up the issue with the System Administrator, it is not possible to state how much longer it would take to fix the problem.

¶186

The convenience of modern technology and computerization of the system is to enable/assist the Income Tax Officers to discharge its statutory obligations under the Act in a more transparent and time efficient manner and not as a substitute for

¶187

¶188

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶189

human action. Therefore, where the computer system, as operating, is an hindrance to the discharge of statutory obligations, then the least that would be expected is that the senior most Officers of the Department would address this issue on war-footing. This inability to process a return of income would cause tremendous hardship to a large number of assessees, particularly retired individuals and others similarly placed who wold be entitled to refund of taxes as a large quantum of amounts received by them would be subject to Tax Deducted at Source, when the tax payable by them is minimal.”

¶190

30There is one more relevant order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fedex
Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax-circle 9(3)(1) & 2 Ors4. Even the said order
shows that even in July 2017, the department was
made aware that the returns cannot be processed due
to non availability of software. We have already
referred to the letter dated 16th August, 2017
addressed by the Assessing Officer to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax. 4th paragraph of the
said letter refers to the case of Shapoorji Pallonji
Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which holds that
computerization is to enable / to assist the Income
Tax Department to function smoothly and the same
cannot act as an excuse/deterrent in addressing to
the queries/requests of genuine tax payers and an

¶191

4 Writ Petition No.1243 of 2017 decided on 25^th July 2017

¶192

¶193

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶194

alternate mechanism should be provided for such
genuine requests. In the light of this observation
that a request was made to permit to manual
processing, but the Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax completely ignored the order of this Court which
is referred in the letter dated 16th August, 2017.

¶195

31Therefore, as far as the Assessment Year 2016-
17 is concerned, the department was fully aware
that returns which were sent to AOs will not be
processed till 1stNovember, 2017. Therefore,
immediate directions ought to have been issued for
permitting the manual processing of the returns by
the AOs. One must note here that the refund claims
attract liability to pay interest.

¶196

32We, therefore, hold that whenever returns are
transferred by the Centre to AOs for processing, if
the returns cannot be processed immediately because
of lack of availability of proper software, or
because of technical difficulties in functioning of
the software, the returns must be permitted to be
processed manually. There will not be any illegality
attached to it.If at all software is not provided
to deal with the returns of a particular year, there
is no embargo imposed by law which prevents AOs from
processing the returns manually. If returns cannot
be processed due to system failure and if the errors
cannot be rectified and system cannot be made
functional within a reasonable time, the
Commissioner ought to permit the AOs to process the
returns manually.

¶197

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶198

¶199

33The learned ASG was at pains to point out that
in the era of digitization/computerization, taking
such a view may not be proper. We are taking this
view firstly because in law we see no such
prohibition. The second reason for taking the said
view is to ensure that the department will make sure
that proper software is always available and
functional which can be used by AOs for processing
the returns which are pushed to them by the Centre.

¶200

34We appreciate the stand taken by the learned
ASG that for the sake of transparency and for
ensuring that that the returns are processed
expeditiously, manual processing should not be
allowed. However, as can be seen from the facts on
record, proper software was not available for
considerably long time and therefore, large number
of returns remained pending for processing. In Writ
Petition No.782 of 2017, on instructions of the
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, the
learned counsel for the Income Tax Department stated
that 55 returns could not be processed by him
including the return of the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.782 of 2017 and only after the petition
was fully heard, the AO suddenly realised that the
system was functioning and therefore, the
processing of the return of the petitioner was
undertaken. This shows that the if the writ
petition would not have been heard, those 55 cases
would have remained pending for indefinitely long
time. The learned ASG had placed on record a

¶201

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶202

¶203

communication dated 10 th July 2015 addressed by the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems) to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. We have perused the said letter. As stated earlier, the provisions of the said Act are silent and there is no prohibition thereunder on manual processing of the returns. Even under the said scheme of 2011 and the second notification, there is no prohibition on the AOs manually processing returns which are transferred to them by the Centre. The letter dated 10 th July 2015 notes that the CBDT has repeatedly instructed that in all cases, orders under section 143 (1)(a)/ section 143(3)/154 should be passed on the system. It is recorded that in exceptional cases such as time barring cases, CBDT has allowed processing of Returns of Income in Online TMS. In clause 6, it is stated that it is decided by the CBDT that henceforth no manual refund should be issued in a case which has been processed on AST system. It is stated that in exceptional cases manual refund may be issued with some safeguards. Thus, even in the direction issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), the issue of manual refunds is permitted in certain cases subject to safeguards provided in clause (6).

¶204

35Other departmental instructions issued on 15th
March 2016 are also placed on record. It record
that certain returns filed during the financial year
2014-15 are pending for process under section 143(1)
wherein the last date for processing is 31st March

¶205

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶206

¶207

2016. The said instructions takes a note that
certain returns could not be processed on AST due to
various technical reasons.

¶208

36There is another letter placed on record by the
learned ASG addressed by the Directorate of Income
Tax (Systems) to all Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Principal Directorate of Income Tax and
Principal Commissioners of Income Tax. The same is
regarding ITBA for processing e-filed returns
transferred by the Centre to ITBA. The said letter
proceeds on the footing that module provided under
ITBA will function. It only lays down the manner in
which processing of returns sent to the AOs will be
done under ITBA. Therefore, none of these letters
establish that it is not open for AOs to process the
returns manually either when a proper software is
not available or when for more than reasonable time,
there is a malfunctioning of the system.

¶209

37In Writ Petition No.782 of 2017, the learned
counsel for the respondents stated that the
processing of the return of the petitioner for the
assessment year 2016-17 has been undertaken in
accordance with sub-section 1 of section 143 of the
said Act. Considering the enormus delay on the part
of the AO, the processing under sub-section 1 of
section 143 will have to be completed within a
period of two weeks from today.

¶210

38In Writ Petition (L) No.2498 of 2017, as refund
has been issued, there is no question of issuing any

¶211

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶212

¶213

specific direction. As regards return subject matter
of Writ Petition No.2051 of 2017 in the affidavit of
the AO, there is a statement on oath that the
scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2015-16
has to be completed by 31st December 2017 as per the
provisions of section 153 of the Income Tax Act and
if any refund is found to be due, the same will be
granted latest by 31st December 2017. The said
assurances will have to be accepted as undertakings
of the respondents. But the processing of the return
will have to be undertaken immediately.

¶214

39Hence, we dispose of the petitions by passing
the following order:

¶215

(I) The processing of the return of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.782 of 2017 shall be completed in accordance with subsection 1 of section 143 of the Income Tax Act,1961 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from today;

¶216

(II) If any refund is found to be due and payable to the petitioner, the same shall be issued in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today;

¶217

(III) In Writ Petition No.2051 of 2017, we accept the following statement made in the affidavit of Shri Madhukar Aves, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2,(3)(1) Mumbai:

¶218

“I say that scrutiny assessment for AY 2015-16
has to be completed by 31.12.2017 as per

¶219

¶220

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶221

provisions of section 153 of the Income-tax
Act. Consequent upon the assessment, if any
refund is due, the same would be granted soon
after completion of assessment latest by
31.12.2017.”

¶222

This statement is accepted as undertakings of
the respondents and therefore, there shall be
order in terms of the statement;

¶223

(IV)Considering the erroneous interpretation
put by the respondents to sub-section 1 (D) of
section 143 of the Income Tax Act,1961, we
direct the Central Government or Central Board
ofDirectTaxestoissuenecessary
clarification for the benefit of the Officers
of the Income Tax Department;

¶224

(V)As we have held earlier, there is no
embargo on manual processing of the returns
which are transmitted by the Central Processing
Centre to Assessing Officers for processing,
when software for processing of the returns is
either not available or is not functioning
properly. Necessary directions shall be issued
by the Government of India or the Central Board
of Direct Taxes to the Income Tax Department
permitting manual processing of the returns in
such cases;

¶225

(VI)The directions as above shall be issued as
expeditiously as possible and in any event
within a period of one month from the date on
which this Judgment is uploaded;

¶226

oswp2051,wpl2498 and wp782

¶227

¶228

(VII)We hold that the power conferred on the
Commissioners under sub clause (ii) of clause 8
of the Centralised Process Scheme of 2011 or
under sub clause (iv) of clause 3 of the
Notification dated 4th January 2012 bearing
S.O. 17(E), shall be used by the Commissioners
to ensure that the returns which are
transmitted to the Income Tax Officers for
processing are taken up in orderly manner;

¶229

(VIII)We direct the Government of India or the
Central Board of Direct Taxes to take a policy
decision for ensuring that the such returns are
taken up for processing in a rational order of
priority. After taking appropriate policy
decision, necessary directions shall be issued
by the Government of India or the Central Board
of Direct Taxes to the Department within a
period of two months from the date on which
this order is uploaded;

¶230

(IX)The directions should be formulated in such
a manner that there is no arbitrariness while
taking up processing of returns by Assessing
Officers;

¶231

(X)The petitions are disposed of with above
directions;

¶232

(XI)Rule is made partly absolute on above
terms;

¶233

(XII)For reporting compliance, the petitions
shall be listed under the caption of
`Directions' on 31st January 2018.

Tata Projects Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Projects Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Customs Ns-Iv Vs M/S. Amba Expo Fab and Anr.

Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (Sasf) Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs Vyankatesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha

Tata Projects Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors.

Suhas Narayan Deshapande Vs Appropriate Authority Constituted Under Section 269 U.B. of the Income Tax Act and Ors.

Ramesh Shankarlal Bhandri Vs Appropriate Authority Constituted Under Section 269 U.B. of the Income Tax Act and Ors.